On The Actual Freedom Mailing List
with Correspondent No. 25
RESPONDENT: Here is my understanding at this point ... I previously knew that the fourth state of consciousness (enlightenment, samadhi, nirvana or whatever) is added to the third state (awakening, satori), only with the difference that the last one needed to be surpassed as this was considered an ‘evolution’.
RICHARD: As I am not familiar with the ‘fourth way’ nomenclature of Mr. Georges Gurdjieff and Mr. Petyr Ouspensky I can only say that what is generally known in Hinduism as ‘Turiya’, or the ‘Fourth State’, is the same state of being as the altered state of consciousness (ASC) popularly known as spiritual enlightenment (in Vedic terms ‘jagrat’ or ‘vaishvanara’ [wakefulness] is the first state; ‘svapna’ or ‘taijasa’ [dreaming] is the second state; and ‘sushupti’ [deep sleep] is the third state). Furthermore, there are about as many gradations and categories of enlightenment as there are schools of thought in spiritual philosophy ... so as to keep it simple it is convenient to say there are those who are self-realised (illuminated or awakened) and those who are fully enlightened.
There can be temporary experiences of the enlightened state ... these are generally referred to, for example, as a satori experience, or kenso, in Japan (wu in Chinese) or entering into samadhi (India).
RESPONDENT: Your experience is that enlightenment is a degeneration of the third state of consciousness (PCE), am I correct?
RICHARD: No, and a pure consciousness experience (PCE) is not ‘the third state of consciousness’ anyway ... here is how you detailed the four states of the ‘fourth way’ system of spiritual philosophy of Mr. Georges Gurdjieff and Mr. Petyr Ouspensky:
As you describe ‘the third state of consciousness’ as being an awakened state wherein one ‘possesses a molecular body, that is a soul’ it simply does not equate with a PCE as a PCE only happens when the psychological/ psychic identity within (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) goes into abeyance: a PCE is a temporary experience of an actual freedom from the human condition ... it is a flesh and blood body only (sans both ego-self and soul-self/spirit-self) being apperceptively aware.
Put succinctly: a PCE is not an ASC.
RESPONDENT: I suspect that this enlightenment state of consciousness is layered on top of the PCE ...
RICHARD: Perhaps it would help to explain that the PCE can devolve into an ASC, such as a satori/ samadhi experience, when the psychic identity (‘me’ as soul) comes sweeping back and claims the experience for its own ... thus grandiosely usurping the infinitude of the universe.
RESPONDENT: ... as I cannot find a more plausible explanation for the fact that the world had had the same magical qualities, was a perfect place to live in and that some senses were very accurate (I was having a wider field of vision somehow different from the usual ‘window sight’, I was hearing all the noises of the moment, as for the other senses I don’t remember).
RICHARD: This is the way I have explained my usage of the word ‘magical’:
Whereas you say that the physical world is not just here right now of its own accord, without any cause, but that everything has begun out of the Self (aka Creator):
The enlightened state of consciousness is in no way ‘layered on top of the PCE’ ... just as an actual freedom from the human condition is beyond enlightenment so too is a PCE beyond any ASC.
RESPONDENT: The ‘sparkling silver’ sensation (it was like thin silver powder filled the air) combined with something resembling Music (the effect of various vibrations I suppose) may very well belong to the realm of ASC.
RICHARD: No matter what realm it belongs to it has no existence whatsoever here in this actual world.
RESPONDENT: Yet, immediately after this state ended I had dinner and I remember how extraordinary delicious the taste of food was: it’s still the best meal I have ever had in my life.
RICHARD: It is quite common to have heightened sensory perception in an ASC (provided it be an extroversive ASC as contrasted to an introversive ASC) ... the nature mystics have written extensively about such experience: www.jnani.org/natmyst/natmyst_set.html
However, the introversive ASC is generally held to be both superior and more significant as it is exemplified by (a) the disappearance of all the physical and mental objects of ordinary consciousness and, in their place, the emergence of a unitary and undifferentiated consciousness and thus (b) the event is non-temporal (timeless), non-spatial (spaceless), and non-material (formless).
Mr. Robert Forman, on page 131 of the ‘Journal of Consciousness Studies Volume 5, Issue 2, 1998’, (in a paper called ‘What Does Mysticism Have To Teach Us About Consciousness?’), described the introversive ASC as a pure consciousness *event* so as to emphasise the absence of any experienced object – it is pure subjectivity in other words – which is also why such terminology as ‘Consciousness Without An Object’ is used to describe the totally senseless and thoughtless trance state known as ‘dhyana’ in Sanskrit (Hinduism) and as ‘jhana’ in Pali (Buddhism).
In the West such a state can only be described as catalepsy ... apart from Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer (aka Ramana), in his early years, possibly the best-known example could be Mr. Gadadhar Chattopadhyay (aka Ramakrishna): onlookers can see the body is totally inward-looking, totally self-absorbed, totally immobile, and totally functionless (the body cannot and does not talk, walk, eat, drink, wake, sleep ... or type e-mails to mailing lists).
A never-ending ‘dhyana’ or ‘jhana’ would result in the body wasting away until its inevitable physical death ... as a means of obtaining peace-on-earth it is completely useless.
RESPONDENT: I do remember another experience I would put the PCE stamp on it; when sitting on a bench in the park with a female companion and looking at the moon through the branches of the trees, I was feeling a perfect man in a perfect world, with no desire to change it for anything else ... she asked me what I was thinking, I ashamedly said ‘nothing’, she replied that that was a genius’s characteristic. We both laughed ...
RICHARD: One of the distinguishing characteristics of the PCE, other than the abeyance of identity in toto of course, is the absence of the affective feelings.
RESPONDENT: The question arises: is what you are living ‘24 hours a day/7 days a week’ that which is called in the eastern tradition Satori (third state of consciousness) or is Parinirvana?
RICHARD: An actual freedom from the human condition is beyond any state of being, by any description, as ‘being’ itself has become extinct ... the expression ‘an altered state of consciousness’ is but another way of saying an altered state of being (wherein ‘being’ has transformed into ‘Being’).
RESPONDENT: The only difference I can see right now between these two is that in Satori (third state of consciousness, temporarily no ego being present, PCE) the instinctual program is still there, only temporary suspended at that particular instance.
RICHARD: The difference is that the identity in toto (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) is in abeyance in a PCE ... whereas in a ASC only one half of the identity (‘I’ as ego) is not present.
RESPONDENT: As for Parinirvana, a state believed to be beyond Enlightenment, this instinctual program is deleted forever together with the affective faculty and its subsequent passions (which are fuelled by the instincts themselves).
RICHARD: As ‘Parinirvana’ (the Buddhist equivalent of the Hindu ‘Mahasamadhi’) is what happens at physical death it is an of course that the instinctual passions cease to exist when the body dies.
RESPONDENT: As a consequence of this deleting no Enlightenment was possible to continue in your case as the enlightened state is fuelled by the affective which in turn is fuelled by the instinctual passions, so the notion emerges that ‘the Diabolical (instinctual passions) underpins the Divine (the affective faculty and its refined and transcended positive functions – Love, Compassion, Understanding)’.
RICHARD: It was not a ‘notion’ that the diabolical underpins the divine ... it was an experiential reality (later backed-up by mystical texts as previously quoted). Furthermore, the instinctual passions – passions such as fear and aggression (the savage side) and nurture and desire (the tender side) – do not just give rise to the diabolical but give rise to the divine as well.
The affective faculty is the instinctual passions ... no matter how refined and cultivated the passions may be honed to they are still instinctual at root.
RESPONDENT: I had the distinct sensation that this I is the Intelligence of the species, our Creator, the Master behind the curtains, the One who holds in His hand the wires that make us humans – the way we are and behave, that is, the Essence of what it is to be a human being, the printing press as it were. That’s why I asked you if this was the last stand for the instincts, in the psychic realm.
RICHARD: Ha ... with all those grandiose titles it smacks of grandstanding.
RESPONDENT: It seems from what you’re saying that God is only the Devil in disguise, as well as Love and Compassion and all the positive feelings.
RICHARD: Not ‘only’ ... both the divine and the diabolical spring from the same rootstock (hence the expression ‘there is a saint in every sinner and a sinner in every saint’).
It is well-known in mystical literature that the polar opposites continue to exist (as complimentary poles) in enlightenment. Indeed, one of the appellations used to describe the integration of the divine/ diabolical divide upon transcendence, wherein the opposites unite without ceasing to be themselves, is the phrase ‘coincidentia oppositorum’ (coincidence of opposites).
I have written to you about this before:
Somehow in all this you do seem to be missing the most salient point ... to wit: ‘being’ itself (aka ‘presence’ or ‘spirit’ or ‘soul’) which the instinctual passions, both the tender side and the savage side, automatically form themselves into. And, no matter how refined and cultivated these tender and savage passions may be honed to, ‘being’ is still extant and is still being both nice and nasty ... albeit on a grandiose scale (divine and diabolical).
In short: both the positive feelings and the negative feelings are what ‘being’ is.
RESPONDENT: I must say it’s an enlightened experience ;-).
RICHARD: It surely is.
RESPONDENT: When I wrote about knowing Everything I was not referring to events (raining in New York), pieces of information (Icelandic language) or facts (the Earth is round rather then flat). I was referring (and you know that very well) to the matter from which everything is made ...
RICHARD: No, I did not know that was what you were referring to – let alone ‘very well’ – as I was only going by the words you wrote and you specifically said that, as well as knowing the inner substance of all things directly, another thing was that there is nothing more to know and that you had absolute knowledge of everything. Vis.:
Yet upon examination it turns out that all you know is, supposedly, what the essence is out of which everything is made of (more on this below).
What I found over the years, both intimately and by dialogue, is that the enlightened state does not bear close scrutiny ... it can collapse like a house of cards, in fact, if a seminal question be sincerely asked.
After all ... it is but a massive delusion replete with hallucinatory visions.
RESPONDENT: Being the world around you enables you to Know the Essence (cells, atoms, molecules, electrons) out of which things are made (a tree, water, stone, people, animal).
RICHARD: The whole point of what I wrote in that section of the e-mail (‘if Mr. Mervin Irani (aka Meher Baba) and Mr. Sathyanarayana Raju (aka Sai Baba) had lived more than five hundred/one thousand years ago they would have been ‘flat earth’ god-men but because of human advances in knowledge they were able to know that the earth is an oblate spheroid circling the sun’) is encapsulated in your above sentence: if you had lived more than 500 years ago you would not be able to ‘Know the Essence’ as being electrons, atoms, molecules, and cells as those advances in human knowledge are very recent (electrons in 1897 CE by Mr. J. J. Thompson; atoms in 1808 CE by Mr. John Dalton; molecules in 1662 CE by Mr. Robert Boyle; cells in 1665 CE by Mr. Robert Hooke).
RESPONDENT: You are the Light which permeates everything (that’s where the term Enlightenment comes from anyhow), so from this you get the impression that you are omniscient.
RICHARD: As the ‘Light which permeates everything’ is the Self (what you have earlier described as a Being made of Light, a God) what you are saying, in effect, is that a God has the impression of being omniscient ... yet does not know ‘events (raining in New York), pieces of information (Icelandic language) or facts (the Earth is round rather then flat)’.
Just what manner of a God is it that has mistaken impressions about its sapience?
And perhaps this is an apt moment to make the observation that nowhere in this e-mail have you provided any examples as to what way [quote] ‘the extraordinary Intelligence of the enlightened State’ [endquote] far surpasses human intelligence.
These are the kind of questions which enabled peace-on-earth all those years ago.
RESPONDENT: Out of this results that much praised and humble statement ‘*i* [emphasis added] know nothing’ or ‘the One who knows does not speak’ as the Knowledge you get there is very different from the knowledge of the intellectual brain (concepts, abstract thoughts, pieces of information) so it cannot be communicated to the later.
RICHARD: The difficulty that the discursive intellect has in grasping mystical knowledge is the difficulty of holding two opposite and thus conflicting concepts at the same time: for instance, on the one hand you say there is nothing more to know (omniscience) and on the other hand you say you know nothing (nescience).
It is generally held that this is because illation/inference is ratiocinative (characterised by or given to the action or process of reasoning) and that divination/revelation is intuitive (known or apprehended immediately and fully without reasoning).
On closer examination, however, it is because mystical knowledge is bunkum ... a load of bosh.
RESPONDENT: To give a suitable comparison, intellectual brain trying towards finding the Answer, Riddle of Existence (and all the Science and its various disciplines – astronomy, physics, chemistry, etc.) are just a dead end, just like looking for light in a dark room, that is ... a futile undertaking.
RICHARD: Whilst it is true that the ‘riddle of existence’ (or the ‘meaning of life’ or the ‘purpose of the universe’ or whatever the human quest may be called) is not to be found intellectually it is equally true that it is not to be found psychically (an epiphenomenal facility of the affective faculty) either.
It is to be found perceptually, here in this actual world, the world of the senses.
RESPONDENT: A difficult task I was faced back then was to try to convey that experience of consciousness in words, and it was almost impossible as there were no words suitable enough in my cultural upbringing (apart from God, Love, Light), I suppose I’ve made some progress since then ... with all the eastern literature.
RICHARD: Oh, you are conveying it well enough ... but, then again, as I know the enlightened state intimately just about any description will do (provided it is extensive enough).
RESPONDENT: As for eastern philosophy and its teachings, they amount to nothing more in my view than emptying an empty dark pot in another empty dark pot, another futile action to undertake. What can result from the intersection of the two (West vs. East, science vs. philosophy, belief vs. representation) is nothing but a battle between non-existent entities.
That is not to discard all the scientific break-throughs as being futile, not at all, they can very much make our living here much more pleasant, safe and enjoyable apart from providing to our brains more accurate representations of the world we live in – as a guiding system), but when dealing with Life, the Answer can only be individual, an experiential living one for each person, and can only be brought by consciousness.
RICHARD: Or, more correctly, can only be brought by the identity within ceasing to stand in the way of the meaning of life being apparent ... the answer to the riddle of existence is already here just as it always has been and always will be.
It is out in the open, plain to view, never hidden.
RESPONDENT: And yes, this ‘big I’ is very intelligent, for we are the most successful animal ever to wander the Earth, are we not? ... it’s how I remember it anyhow.
RICHARD: As the ‘big I’ you are referring to was [quote] ‘the extraordinary Intelligence of the enlightened State’ [endquote] in your previous e-mail, which you earlier poetically compared with a matrix, a printing press for the human race, whilst asking if it was [quote] ‘the Intelligence of the species’ [endquote] I wonder just what your ‘yes’ is in response to as my reply was to observe that enlightenment was not intelligence in action.
Perhaps if I were to restate it this way: the affective faculty’s epiphenomenal psychic facility is not intelligent at all – let alone extraordinarily so – as it is the cognitive capacity to understand and comprehend (as in intellect and sagacity) which is the cerebral ability to sensibly and thus judiciously think, remember, reflect, appraise, plan, and implement considered activity for beneficial purposes (and to be able to rationally convey reasoned information to other human beings so that coherent knowledge can accumulate around the world and to the next generations) – which other animals cannot do – which is intelligence in operation.
And this is the intelligence which has made the human animal the most successful animal ever to wander the earth ... moreover, when all the gods and goddesses cease meddling in human affairs (via altruistic ‘self’-immolation in toto) the human species will do even better than it has done so far.
Far, far better, in fact.
RESPONDENT: It was clear to me that the answer to both Life and my happiness was not to be found in Science or in the outside World, but in consciousness or in ontology to be more precise :))
RICHARD: As ontology is the science of being then neither the answer to life nor happiness is to be found there ... only the dissolution of ‘being’ itself will do the trick.
RESPONDENT: To make things clearer and simple, I don’t doubt the necessity for me (Respondent) to disappear, I’ve witnessed that and it’s a deadly happy experience.
RICHARD: Yet there is much more to discover beyond enlightenment ... much, much more.
RESPONDENT: The novelty of the quest you propose here is that the Self is also to vanish (or not to arise altogether), and you say that the method for this to happen is by deleting the instinctual program (and thus avoiding the ‘trap’ of enlightenment when deleting only the self-social construct with the instinctual passions left intact).
RICHARD: The ‘social construct’ part of what you describe as the ‘self-social construct’ is what I call the social identity ... it is otherwise known as a conscience, a moral/ethical and principled entity, with inculcated societal knowledge of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, overlaid upon the identity within (anybody who is or has been a parent will know that it is considered the parents’ duty to instil cultural values in their off-spring).
The identity within is a two-part identity (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul/spirit) and enlightenment is when the ego-self collapses, dies, dissolves, or merges with the soul-self/spirit-self (whereupon there is a rapid expansion of identity until it becomes All That Is, or Self, God, Truth, Being, That, Suchness, Isness and so on and so on) ... whereas an actual freedom from the human condition only happens when the identity in toto becomes extinct.
As ‘I’ am the instinctual passions and the instinctual passions are ‘me’ then altruistic ‘self’-immolation in toto is the deletion of the instinctual passions ... in other words you cannot delete ‘the instinctual programme’ without deleting yourself.
RESPONDENT: I must confess that it sounds logical and sane enough.
RICHARD: Okay ... one starts where one is at: the social identity cannot safely be whittled away unless there be the pure intent to be happy and harmless, each moment again, born of the PCE, because this socialised conscience, the moral/ ethical and principled entity with its inculcated societal knowledge of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ (cultural values), has been implanted for a very good reason.
It is there to control the wayward self which lurks within the human breast ... which is why dedication to peace-on-earth is paramount.
RESPONDENT: First reply – [Richard]: ‘Second, the ‘lack of personal ‘touch’ in our email exchange’ which you were quite irritated by is easily explained: if you were to knock-knock at this brain there would be no-one there to answer ... my previous companion eventually became so disappointed by the lack of personal touch (as in ‘no-one to make a connection with’ so as to have a relationship) that upon making a deeply passionate connection with another person she packed her bags and moved out. You may find this exchange helpful: [Co-Respondent]: ‘As you were mentioning that the real world has exceeded Monty Python and that nonetheless you are having a ball all the way, I fail yet to get a clear picture of you being also a person or is this perhaps a very subtle touch of black humour that you have introduced into our conversation? [Richard]: ‘It is this simple: as there is no alien identity in this flesh and blood body you cannot recognise me (it is only in a PCE that another person can relate to me). [endquote]. In all fairness to my previous companion it must be remembered that the person she met, and initially formed an (undying) relationship with, was an *enlightened* being – she was showered with, drenched in, and subordinated by, Love Agapé and Divine Compassion – and not this actual Richard ... whereas my current companion only knows me as-I-am (thus there is no-one to miss)’. [emphasis added].
Second reply – [Respondent]: ‘I’m also curious about your former partner, Devika, the one who got away with an enlightened man (after spending approx. 10 years in your company) ... [Richard]: ‘Golly ... this is the information I supplied to you: [Richard]: ‘... my previous companion eventually became so disappointed by the lack of personal touch (as in ‘no-one to make a connection with’ so as to have a relationship) that upon making a deeply passionate connection with another person she packed her bags and moved out’. I neither said ‘enlightened’ nor ‘man’ ... or even said she ‘got away’ with this other person. [endquote]. I understood from your first reply that her new boyfriend was an enlightened person, that is a man, or is she a lesbian (‘matrilineal love’)? (‘got away’ was a more ‘humanly conditioned’ way to say it).
RICHARD: I see ... whereas the enlightened being my first reply refers to, whom she initially met and formed an (undying) relationship with, was the one parasitically inhabiting this flesh and blood body at the time of that meeting (in 1986).
I only became apparent when that grandiose identity died (in 1992) ... and, although she valiantly accommodated herself to the startling change in her relationship for the next five years, it can be said, but only in retrospect (which is why the word ‘undying’ is parenthesised), that all the while she longed for the affective connection of the preceding six years (after all she had been showered with, drenched in, and subordinated by, Love Agapé and Divine Compassion for the first two of those six years).
Which is why I said ‘in all fairness to my previous companion ...’.
In fact, both of my ex-wives had a difficult time with their husband: my first wife, being conventionally religious, and upon being faced with her husband’s spiritual enlightenment in the fifteenth year of a normal marriage, chose for the status-quo and, as far as I know, to this very day is still faithfully waiting for the ‘Second Coming’ of her God-Man (he who has a different notion of what a ‘generation’ means than virtually anyone else).
She stills speaks nostalgically about the person she married.
And my second wife, as I have already mentioned, upon being faced with her husband’s actual freedom from the human condition in the sixth year of an abnormal marriage – and being of a feministic mystical persuasion long before we met – chose for what she says is ‘True Love’ (‘Matrilineal not Patrilineal’) and, as far as I know (as of March 2000), is still faithfully waiting for the ‘True Peace’, which she further said only a female can manifest via ‘True Intimacy’, to manifest itself.
Whereas my current companion only knows me as-I-am (thus there is no-one to miss and/or long for).
RESPONDENT: And a few more questions ... what was the difference in experiencing sleep when enlightened compared to your actual present state of consciousness?
RICHARD: In a word: identity.
RESPONDENT: What was the most harmful action you did to other human beings when being a ‘Richard’? What was the most harmful action you did to other human beings when being a Self? I’m referring to an actual harm and not to a potential for harmful action (be it psychological or physical).
RICHARD: The most harmful action in both cases (both being ‘human’ and being ‘divine’) operated twenty-four hours of the day: involuntarily radiating affective vibes and transmitting psychic currents ... and the divine vibes and currents, being so powerful, are the most insalubrious and reprehensible.
RESPONDENT: Have you made no error while living in your present state?
RICHARD: Ha ... I am not infallible (if that is what you mean) and, having nothing to hide, easily correct any error.
RESPONDENT: Do you still have the ability to correct that action when making an error?
RICHARD: As ‘that action’ is no longer extant your query is a non-sequitur.
RESPONDENT: If it’s the ultimate in human development, are you fully aware of the implications? Were we (humans) not to evolve any further than that (in reference to consciousness) in 10.000 years, 100.000 or even a million years?
RICHARD: Here is how I have described the apperception which epitomises both a pure consciousness experience (PCE) and an actual freedom from the human condition: [Richard]: ‘As this flesh and blood body only I am this material universe experiencing itself as an apperceptive human being ... as such it is stunningly aware of its own infinitude’. [endquote]. In what way do you propose that infinitude can evolve?
RESPONDENT: Hmm ... I had the distinct impression that the Self was also infinite, and as such Perfect.
RICHARD: That is indeed the impression, yes ... yet all the while it has been this material universe which is infinite, eternal, and perpetual (the Self is but an usurper arrogating the properties of the actual for Itself).
In order to be humble one does have to first be arrogant.
RESPONDENT: The whole point of immortality is if consciousness can exist independent of the functions (the physical body).
RICHARD: As immortality implies that the physical body is a function of consciousness (consciousness giving rise to matter rather than matter giving rise to consciousness) it has occasioned all manner of implausible explanations as to how, when, where and why it would do so ... the one that tops the list on the scale of nonsense dressed up as wisdom is the Eastern concept of Leela (aka dance, play, sport, diversion). As a child still in short pants I would ask Western religious persons just what their soul would do in their heaven (no hair to brush, no teeth to clean, and so on) as everything done on earth is bodily-determined or body-related ... when pursued rigorously queries such as these always elicit the classic fall-back position (only their god knows). Yet ask a god-on-earth (or be one oneself) and the answer is ... it is unknowable. So much for omniscience, eh?
RESPONDENT: I know that (some) functions can manifest themselves without consciousness. I remember one time being totally drunk with a sudden blackout occurring, something like turning the lights off, yet my friends told me the next day that in the following hours I’ve danced, I’ve joked, I’ve walked alone to a taxi and finally got home.
RICHARD: Yet you said (just above) that the whole point of immortality is consciousness existing independent of the functions (the physical body) ... why do you give an example of what the body did during a drug-induced amnesia (which is quite common with many ingested substances)? An examination of amnesia itself can throw light upon your experience: for example, I watched a documentary of a chronically amnestic woman (with a three-minute memory) who, unless she writes down in a notebook she carries everywhere with her what she has done during that period, does not know whether she has done something or not (such as accepting and drinking the glass of water offered by the interviewer).
RESPONDENT: The fourth state is indeed unknowable from our ordinary view. The whole method of spirituality, starting from the belief that the functions and consciousness are separate or can be separated, is to inflict voluntary suffering or the soft-named ‘friction’ on the physical body (‘I’m not my body’ attitude and all the actions resulting from this statement), so to achieve (more or less overtly acknowledged) immortality. Your method states the opposite.
The sense of immortality can only be achieved in the fourth state of consciousness, where the sense of ‘I’ (a Being made of light) is outside the physical body, so the conclusion arises that ‘I’ will exist for eternity and survive the physical death. This is for me more than a belief, it was something I’ve lived through ... yet you say is but a delusion, a very pleasant delusion if I may add. The question still remains: how can a body which is made of cells can transform itself into a molecular body (soul) and then into an electronic body (Self or Spirit)?
RICHARD: First of all the light which the being is made of is metaphysical light and not physical light ... thus it is not electronic (electricity is material).
Second, the cellular body does not transform itself at all ... let alone into a molecular body (soul) as compounds are also material: it is the ego-self (an emotional-mental construct) which collapses, dies, dissolves, or merges with the soul-self/spirit-self (an affective being or presence) thus creating a psychic super-self.
In other words the metaphysical light is psychic light: thus the Self or Spirit is a psychic body.
RESPONDENT: Is the impression of ‘being light’ just an illusion?
RICHARD: Yes, though for the sake of clarity in communication and consistency I call it a delusion (the delusion of ‘Being’ born out of the illusion of ‘being’).
RESPONDENT: It is that the goal of your method is to achieve the third state (an aim for the spiritual methods as well, though only as an intermediate one) from there on things go indeed in opposite directions.
RICHARD: No ... the goal of the actualism method is to by-pass all altered states of consciousness (to head in the opposite direction from the word go).
RESPONDENT: The example I provided with getting drunk was to ascertain whether functions can manifest without consciousness.
RICHARD: Which (amnestic) example has nothing to do with immortality: immortality is, supposedly, consciousness existing without a body ... as in consciousness without an object.
In your example of what bodily occurred during a drug-induced amnesia (which is quite common with many ingested substances) the body was still conscious ... just because what was occurring was not being remembered does not mean the state or condition of being conscious (albeit inebriated) was not happening.
RESPONDENT: The instinctive brain can function independent of whether you’re conscious or not ...
RICHARD: Or, to put that another way, the autonomic nervous system functions non-consciously (as evidenced in sleep).
RESPONDENT: ... this body will very much regulate its flow of blood, the heart will beat of his own accord, the digesting process will not require your attention, etc.; also a good example can be found in patients living in a state of coma.
RICHARD: Somehow you seem to be conflating what the word ‘consciousness’ refers to (the suffix ‘-ness’ forms a noun expressing a state or condition) with what the word ‘self-conscious’ refers to (the awareness of being conscious) ... and, while the state or condition of being conscious can also include being aware of being conscious, the vast majority of conscious organisms (animals) do not have self-awareness.
A comatose person is an unconscious person ... neither conscious nor aware of being conscious.
RESPONDENT: Animals and birds do not require consciousness in order to live, so it seems there are many examples where the brains do not require consciousness in order to perform their usual activities.
RICHARD: All sentient beings are conscious ... and sentience means consciousness. Vis.:
A sentient being, and all animals are sentient (having the power or function of sensation), is a living organism capable of sensory perception (a virus, for example, is an organism without sentience) which means that sensory perception is what consciousness is at its most basic ... perception means consciousness (aka awareness). Vis.:
In popular usage, however, the word ‘consciousness’ can also mean the (illusory) identity which is being conscious ... whereas the word ‘awareness’ does not usually carry that connotation.
To put that another way: while the word ‘conscious’ can mean the same as what the word ‘aware’ means the word ‘consciousness’ can also mean something other that what the word ‘awareness’ means ... it can mean the supposedly immortal entity which makes a sentient being alive and not dead (as in the phrase ‘consciousness has left the body’ to signify physical death).
RESPONDENT: It seems consciousness is a luxury item exclusively at the use of the human animal.
RICHARD: Again you appear to be talking of self-consciousness (not to be confused with ‘self-conscious’ as in being embarrassed) or self-awareness ... if so there is evidence that the chimpanzee is self-conscious (aka self-aware) and, although it is early days yet in the research, there is some evidence that dolphins may be too.
It is far from being a luxury item ... it is a vital precursor to intelligence.
That the vast majority of animals are not self-conscious (do not have self-awareness) is the reason why, by and large, it is generally held that animals do not have a consciousness which ‘leaves the body’ at physical death.
RESPONDENT: In what way is consciousness related to intelligence?
RICHARD: If you are indeed referring to self-consciousness, or self-awareness, it is an essential prerequisite for intelligence to arise: intelligence is not only the faculty of the human brain thinking, with all its understanding (intellect) and comprehension (sagacity), but includes its cognisance (awareness or consciousness) of being a body existing in the world of people, other animals, plants, things and events.
Moreover, intelligence requires self-reference – which involves the issue of agency (intervening action towards an end; action personified; a source of action towards an end) and agency can be only self-referential – plus intelligence also requires self-interest: a self-referential organism is concerned about its existence, and by extension others’ existence, in that it is biased – it finds water appealing and acid unappealing for example – and being biased is what being self-interested means.
However, if you are referring ‘consciousness’ as popularly meaning the (illusory) identity which is being conscious ... it is, of course, not related to intelligence at all.
Its presence cripples intelligence, in fact.
RESPONDENT: As for asking myself the same question as you did ‘what/who’s looking at whom’ stuff, it’s very understandable as there I was, with no Respondent left of me, busy being somebody else’s Self, conditions were as such that a highly possible logical intelligent outcome resulted: ‘what am I’? as it’s clear I was no Goddess, ha?
RICHARD: Behind all gods and goddesses lies the genderless Absolute ... which can manifest in or as whatever form it likes.
RESPONDENT: But the impact and relevance of it was like thinking why the albatross wings are two meters instead of four when having an intense orgasm.
RICHARD: Hmm ... ‘nuff said about how (supposedly) all-surpassing the ‘big-‘I’ Intelligence of the species’ is then, eh?
RESPONDENT: I think you got it wrong here, the question ‘who/what is watching who?’ was not asked by the ‘big I’ as SHE could not ask such a question, it was rather the body (intellectual brain) reaction to an event such as the ASC. This question had no relevance to the Self where my sense of identity was situated, so the comparison with the albatross’s wings span ... it was an irrelevant questioning for the Self.
RICHARD: Okay ... perhaps it is the way you put a sentence together as your ‘there I was, with no Respondent left of me, busy being somebody else’s Self’ report conveys that you are [quote] ‘the extraordinary Intelligence of the enlightened State’ [endquote], which supposedly far surpasses any human intelligence, whilst asking the question.
However, this is similar wording to your earlier testimony (that you are the light which permeates everything and that from this you get the impression you are omniscient) ... do you see that, even though there was no name left of you, and with your sense of identity situated in the Self, it was human intelligence which was operating (albeit overwhelmed by the intensity of the orgasmic-like experience to the point that the impact of the ‘highly possible logical intelligent outcome’ was rendered irrelevant by that Self’s presence)?
The $64,000 question is this: is the Self, a Being of light, the Light which permeates everything, a God, Goddess, or Master behind the curtains, the One who holds in His hand the wires that make humans human, the Creator out of which everything has begun, the Intelligence of the species, intelligent or not ... let alone an all-surpassing and all-knowing intelligence?
Where is the evidence of this intelligence?
For eleven years, night and day, I was able to intimately explore this issue, and other issues, and all that was evident was an outstanding ignorance and a remarkable arrogance ... the example in the previous e-mail of planet earth being a heliocentric spheroid being but one instance of the ignorance and the arrogation of the properties of the universe, and the aggrandisement of human qualities, in this e-mail are but some instances of the arrogance.
More importantly was the arresting evidence that, after something like three to five thousand years of scriptural history recording the many and varied instances of gods and goddesses imparting their all-surpassing wisdom to a benighted humanity, humankind was nowhere nearer to peace and harmony than before. Indeed, because of the much-touted love and compassion, much hatred and bloodshed had followed in the wake of the many and varied saints and sages and seers.
Thus demonstrably the ‘Tried and True’ is the ‘tried and failed’: intelligence in action is the acknowledgement that something which has not produced the goods, despite at least 3,000-5,000 years for it to work its wisdom in, is never going to deliver on its spurious promise and that it is high time to clear the work-bench and start afresh ... learn from those that have gone before and move on.
For starters: one needs to fully acknowledge the biological imperative (the instinctual passions) which are the root cause of all the ills of humankind. The genetically inherited passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire) give rise to malice and sorrow and their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion: these negative and positive feelings are intrinsically connected and constitute what is known as ‘The Human Condition’.
The term ‘Human Condition’ is a well-established philosophical term that refers to the situation that all human beings find themselves in when they emerge here as babies. The term refers to the contrary and perverse nature of all peoples of all races and all cultures. There is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in everyone ... all humans have a ‘dark side’ to their nature and a ‘light side’. The battle betwixt ‘Good and Evil’ has raged down through the centuries and it requires constant vigilance lest evil gets the upper hand. Morals and ethics seek to control the wayward self that lurks deep within the human breast ... and some semblance of what is called ‘peace’ prevails for the main. Where morality and ethicality fails to curb the ‘savage beast’, law and order is maintained ... at the point of a gun.
The ending of malice and sorrow, and their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion, involves getting one’s head out of the clouds – and beyond – and coming down-to-earth where the flesh and blood bodies called human beings actually live. Obviously, peace on earth can only be found here in space and now in time as this material body. Then the question is: is it possible to be free of the human condition, here on earth, in this life-time, as this flesh and blood body?
Which means: how on earth can one live happily and harmlessly, in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are, whilst one nurses malice and sorrow, and their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion, in one’s bosom?
RESPONDENT: It’s nice to discuss with you about these matters as there are less then a few who are willing to sincerely discuss them in the open.
RICHARD: You are very welcome ... and one of the reasons why there is little willing and open discussion into these matters is because they are held to be sacrosanct (not to be questioned).
Another reason is that to do so could be the beginning of the end of ‘me’ in ‘my’ entirety.
RESPONDENT: The question still remains: how can a body which is made of cells can transform itself into a molecular body (soul) and then into an electronic body (Self or Spirit)?
RICHARD: First of all the light which the ‘being’ is made of is metaphysical light and not physical light ... thus it is not electronic (electricity is material). Second, the cellular body does not transform itself at all ... let alone into ‘a molecular body (soul)’ as compounds are also material: it is the ego-self (an emotional-mental construct) which collapses, dies, dissolves, or merges with the soul-self/ spirit-self (an affective being or presence) thus creating a psychic super-self. In other words the metaphysical light is psychic light: thus the Self or Spirit is a psychic body.
RESPONDENT: I myself questioned whether it was actual light, yet as I couldn’t find no-one enlightened and alive to talk to, (both in my surroundings and then in the outside world) as to compare notes, I had to rely on all kinds of sources, mainly literature (very few books actually, as I had the tendency to look after practical methods rather than ideas) and a fourth way study group (after 2 years it abruptly ended as I’ve met the Teacher – who said that he was ... God in persona, yet it became clear when I’ve asked him ‘Wazz Up!!?’ what he had to offer, just a big fake American smile). The questioning whether it was actual physical light or metaphysical light happened as the ASC began at 6 p.m. and ended at approx. 9:30 p.m., that is exactly when the last rays of the summer Sun illuminated the clouds and when darkness set in.
RICHARD: One way of determining that the light is not physical is that, despite its brilliance, it does not hurt the eyes ... and as the light is experienced as being pure love, in the form of total acceptance and/or forgiveness, there could be no question that it be other than a metaphysical light.
There can also be the feeling of having come home, when in the presence of the light, plus the impression of instantaneous and non-verbal communication which imparts all knowledge ... golly, if it were to have been physical light, some enterprising New Dark Age entrepreneur surely would have found some way of bottling it by now, for sale at highly inflated prices, to complement their colour-therapy panaceas.
RESPONDENT: I’m not sure either if the state called enlightenment is a ‘card castle’, as for a card castle it takes less than 11 years to demolish it.
RICHARD: If recorded history is anything to go by it could be said that it took maybe 5,011 years for the house of cards called spiritual enlightenment to collapse ... if it indeed takes ‘takes less than 11 years to demolish it’ how come there is no record (as far as I have been able to ascertain over 20 plus years of scouring the books) of that having been done any where at any time by any person?
RESPONDENT: I’ve asked you what’s the difference in experiencing sleep when enlightened compared to actual sleep as I was curious whether there would be any light, in case you slept at night.
RICHARD: Oh, even in waking moments I could be bathed in radiant light ... walking alone along a track in the forest, or across a field, at night there was (seemingly) no need for a torch or lantern as the light shone all around me and travelled with me. It was pertinent to note, however, that levitation would also happen – I would glide along about a metre above the ground – and once when it was happening in daylight some other people saw me approaching and upon asking them if they noticed anything different they all said no.
In short: I was walking on the ground just like any other mortal.
That was the end of both the ‘levitation’ and the ‘radiance’ ... then came a period where there was a vivid blue light, an internal blue of rapturous bliss behind the eyebrows, that was present all the time and which, in sleep, would expand and become the entire universe (and beyond) in which I could travel anywhere at will through myriads of gleaming stars. Interestingly enough this ‘blue light’/‘blue universe’ made a brief, alluring, reappearance the night that the house of cards came tumbling down, maybe somewhat in the nature of a last temptation, and I was finally able to examine it closely.
Beneath the blandishment was a tacky blue ‘universe’ with tacky yellow ‘stars’ ... like a long-disused fair-ground’s painted canvas gone to wrack and ruin.
RESPONDENT: Sleeping by the river bank or in the forests, wow! – you should be more careful to whom you fall in love; Nature is not a comfortable lover ;) – I had some fun reading that part.
RICHARD: It was a glorious time (albeit a deluded time), in contrast to being normal, and I was impervious to hardships and could endure all manner of discomfort with majestic aplomb ... so much so that the word ‘endure’ is not really appropriate. For instance a raging toothache over an eighteen month period, which would have sent a normal person to a dentist without hesitation, was not painful (in the sense of hurting).
The price paid for having bliss supplant pain was needing to have an extraction, rather than a filling replacement, when the tooth eventually fell apart.
RESPONDENT: To put it another way: How have you experienced sleep when enlightened compared to when you were a 26 years old happily married man ?
RICHARD: In the earlier days sleep was not sleep – it was a period of replenishment by the source of all things as an inordinate amount of energy was being expended – but as the years went on and I became more and more suss about the whole shemozzle most of the esoteric stuff gradually came to an end ... by the time 3-4 years had gone by sleep was more or less back to normal, with some scattered exceptions, and I was mostly engaged in what I later came to learn was called ‘lucid dreaming’ wherein I would track down the dreamer during sleep just as in waking hours.
There was all manner of vain-glorious esoterica, though, in the first 3-4 years ... ‘tis no wonder it has had such a tenacious grip on the human psyche for maybe 3,000-5,000 years of recorded history (and maybe 50,000 years of prehistory).
RESPONDENT: I’ve read most of your journal, you have a ‘cultic style’ of writing, many times repeating words and ideas.
RICHARD: Oh? As I was trained to be an instructor in the military – plus I am a qualified art teacher – I would have said the repetition is more an instructive style of writing, if anything, as in being mnemonical ... plus I have a penchant for alliterative phrases which roll easily of the tongue anyway.
I like words ... communicating is so much fun.
RESPONDENT: The style is favourable for a cult development, ‘in the name of actualism you are neither a man nor a woman, nor an ego nor a Self, but a flesh-and-blood being’ ;)
RICHARD: When a person gets off their backside, rolls up their sleeves, and actually puts the actualism method into practice they discover that there is no way it can ever be other than a DIY project.
RESPONDENT: That’s why I would never subscribe to the idea of 6 billion people starting to practice actualism.
RICHARD: For as long as you see it as an ‘idea’ – rather than experientially seeing the practical possibility it actually is – then the essential ingredient called altruism will remain forever elusively out of reach ... just as an actual freedom from the human condition will.
It is impossible to be selfishly free.
RESPONDENT: You seem to be too far-away from the real world, as to consider such a possibility ... as global peace-on-earth.
RICHARD: It is the other way around: you are ‘too far-away’ from this actual world, as it were, to see that it is entirely possible ... as any pure consciousness experience (PCE) will verify.
Not that I advocate anybody hold their breath in anticipation.
RESPONDENT: I find myself in the position of this body graciously and gradually turning in the direction you point to, yet at the same time with my head turned the other way around ... eager to understand why and how it was possible to get enlightened.
RICHARD: In a word: gullibility ... in several words: credulity stretched to the max.
RESPONDENT: I have trouble in understanding the difference between the words ‘sense’ and ‘direction’ when comparing the AF method with spiritual ones.
RICHARD: The oft-repeated ‘180 degrees in the other direction’ phrase simply means coming to one’s senses rather than going further away (withdrawing from the senses) from the world as-it-is than one already is ... everyone is already detached and to practise detachment is to be twice-removed from actuality.
RESPONDENT: I’ve noticed that you use the word ‘merge’, does it mean that the Absolute is a separate entity?
RICHARD: No, my experience is that when the ego dies there is only ‘The Absolute’ ... and my usage of terms other than ‘die’ (such as ‘merge’) has been an accommodation to different peoples’ experience for the sake of clarity in communication.
Some say the ego collapses, some say it dissolves, some say it expands, some say it realises who it really is ... it all amounts to the same thing.
RESPONDENT: I’ve personally tried in the past to discover a more scientific method to achieve enlightenment, stripped of any religiosity, as the woman we spoke about had a certain talent in enlightening people, (matrilineal love?). Is a person Self the same when experienced by various people?
RICHARD: At root it is the same ... there are many variations, however, apart from a gender distinction (some cultural, some racial, some personal, some epochal, and so on).
RESPONDENT: Is this not a proof that is a separate entity and not a projection?
RICHARD: At root it is the same ... this sameness is what ecumenicalism is on about, for example.
RESPONDENT: I know that both in my case, and a guy she met during a vacation in Pattaya, Thailand, the ASC was identical both in intensity and the way her Self looked and was experienced. I’ve said she had a ‘certain talent’ as the process of getting people enlightened was mostly her contribution, as she entered a state named ‘alpha’ (her terminology) and from there sending brain waves which were perceived by the receiver already in a state of heightened emotional receptivity, which in turn led to the ASC.
RICHARD: Hmm ... this could be an example of what I would call ‘psychic currents’.
RESPONDENT: It seems that the receiver had to be in the optimum state in order to be profoundly influenced by these vibes. There are 4 known scientifically? measured states for the brain waves, that is alpha, theta, delta, beta; here is a link you might find of use, sorry but no valuable links found for the 4th way description of consciousness states:www.hollys.com/cyber-psychic/alpha.htm
RICHARD: I accessed the web page, and the other you supplied later, and read what is on offer ... this is what the Encyclopaedia Britannica has to say in part:
RESPONDENT: Is this classification applicable to your present condition?
RICHARD: As it has very little validity in consciousness studies it would have very little, if any, applicability.
RESPONDENT: And if not, on what frequency does your brain operate anyhow?
RICHARD: I have never had reason to find out.
RESPONDENT: First I was in the position when hearing the question about whether God exists or not, to chuckle, thinking what weak and fearful these people are ... this was mainly the courtesy of communism – by-the-way another secular attempt to live in peace, yet fatally flawed as it forgot or denied the 4 basic survival rules ...
RICHARD: What ‘4 basic survival rules’ are you referring to?
RESPONDENT: ... and as such unnatural. I have a first hand experience that this could only lead to hypocrisy, theft, corruption, greed; even brain-washing won’t work, these instincts have an innate ability to turn almost anything to their own advantage and fulfil their priorities.
RICHARD: Any system brought about by political change, social reform, economic reconstruction, cultural revisionism, and so on, is bound to fail, no matter how well thought out, because blind nature’s genetically endowed survival passions, and the ‘being’ or ‘presence’ they automatically form themselves into, will stuff it up again and again.
I have seen this repeatedly on the familial level, on the local community level, on the national level, and on the an international level ... plus, more pertinently, on the partnership (marriage/ relationship) level.
Unless one can live with just one other person, in peace and harmony twenty four hours of the day, nothing is ever going to work on any other scale.
RESPONDENT: As we humans can live for a couple of days without food or water, a couple of minutes without air, it can be surely said that we are unable to live even for a second without impressions as sensory input. The output is probably our business.
That’s where various methods & programmers step in to program the brains, so as to understand the incoming and control the outcome & have a suitable re-action.
These methods have failed until this day in my case to bring a joyful existence.
To this I was referring when I wrote that you first have to acknowledge the automatic responses of the 4 brains to a particular situation and then try to do something about it, to follow the beast trails into the woods and then have a ‘face-to-face conversation’.
RICHARD: The ‘automatic’ reaction you refer to occurs in the brain-stem (popularly known as the lizard brain or the reptilian brain) as is evidenced by crocodylidae family, for example, who do not have a mammalian brain or a neo-cortex overlaid on top of this primeval stem.
With the extirpation of the primitive root of such automatic reactions the brain itself is freed to operate at its optimum.
RESPONDENT: To establish ‘buffers’ so as not to get in touch with what you are or how the real world looks like, is not a sensible solution in my view. The appropriate responses are what these brains are trained for (both by nature and one’s peers to deal with society entanglements) in order to cope with a particular situation, so various being-impulses arise, both inwardly and outwardly, The fact that there are not so many situations in which they are necessary these days is true, but who can afford to eliminate them?
RICHARD: The person who is vitally interested in peace-on-earth, in this lifetime as this flesh and blood body, of course.
RESPONDENT: ... as fear combined with aggression would result in a pre-emptive strike and then desire and nurture would seek to establish democracy and bring prosperity.
Of course, fringe benefits are a necessary condition as no-one does anything free of charge – especially ‘good’ actions – as it will assure survival, but unfortunately it will also generate competition with others well-meaning entities for survival. and again and again.
The problem with any reference system is that when finding a host ‘it’ thinks that ‘he’ can understand and in some cases resolve any matters that may arise.
RICHARD: Which is why I stress that actualism is experiential and not theoretical (not a philosophy).
RESPONDENT: It was the case when pondering 4th way ideas, they seemed so correct and made so much sense. The temptation is here to take this as ‘just another cure-to-all medicine’. Yes, you say this is not a panacea, let alone a placebo ... but extinction, one must surely think twice before sw-allowing it as a solution.
RICHARD: Indeed ... one does not altruistically ‘self’-immolate for the benefit of this body and that body and every body just because it seems like a good idea at the time: it is a once-in-a-lifetime decision ... a curious decision the likes of which one has never made before nor ever will again.
RESPONDENT: I confess that I’ve never liked radicals or extremists, there was always something suspicious about them.
RICHARD: This is what the word ‘radical’ means to me:
Thus when I use the word I do not mean the superficial ‘radicalism’ of human history ... I mean the real McCoy (eradicating the root cause).
In short: nobody has been radical up till now.
RESPONDENT: No matter if it’s on a grand scale or in the company one works, that example (US vs. Iraq) is just one instance in which the world ticks, this is how animate matter works for eons.
RICHARD: Sure, and it has ticked well-enough, over maybe 1.3 million years or more, to get humankind to this point and will, presumably, keep on ticking well-enough to keep the species surviving.
However the question of freedom is about the quality of life (as in the meaning of life) and not mere survival.
RESPONDENT: So, here you come saying: look people there is no need to have any defence mechanisms in place, if there is anyone who would like to have your beautiful silk cloth just give it to him, and don’t even think to head for the police station or physically defend yourself, as both these actions will harm him. It sounds familiar enough with something I’ve heard before ...
RICHARD: Are you referring to me here? If so it is way, way off the mark as I do not advocate pacifism and never will (having lived it, night and day for eleven years, I know its defects intimately).
RESPONDENT: Why do you think that he knows better then everyone else what a ‘generation’ is? I don’t understand all the English language subtleties :).
RICHARD: Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene, if such a person ever existed, specifically said that he would return before the current generation died ... as many, many generations have died since then it yet another piece of biblical evidence that it is all the stuff of fantasies.
Other religions have their version of the Parousia: Buddhism has their Maitreya; Islam has their Mahdi; Hinduism has their Kalki; Judaism has their Messiah; Taoism has their Kilin and so on. The Christian myth is of particular poignancy because their god was to have came back on a cloud blowing his trumpet and putting everything to rights nigh on one thousand nine hundred and thirty odd years ago ... ‘before this generation passeth away’ spake he sagely as he decamped for his abba’s mansion above the clouds.
The moral of the story? All you get by waiting is more waiting.
RESPONDENT: Some of them, especially the instinctive impulses are ‘being harmful’, no doubt about it. We ‘fortunately’ live in a society where the savage instincts are considered ‘bad’ and as such reprehensible and the tender instincts as ‘good’. Thanks to various god-men.
RICHARD: As the many and varied saints, sages, and seers have perpetuated all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides, and so on, due to stopping halfway on the road to freedom they are hardly due any ‘thanks’ ... each one of them had, just as I did, the vital opportunity to go beyond enlightenment and thus bring all this nonsense to an end once and for all.
If Mr. Gotama the Sakyan for example, if such a person ever existed, had had the intestinal fortitude to become actually free of the human condition then in all possibility the ensuing 2,500 years would have brought about a virtual peace-on-earth, if not an actual peace-on-earth, on a global scale.
RESPONDENT: But war is the inevitable outcome of such a state of affairs in the long run, as these instincts tend to explode when repressed for a longer period of time.
RICHARD: Exactly ... just as anger and anguish, due to their sublimation and transcendence, ‘tend to explode’ in the many and varied saints, sages, and seers from time-to-time (thus they are indubitably not due any ‘thanks’ whatsoever for their pusillanimity).
RESPONDENT: That was not always the case with pre-Christian European societies, all those 4 ruled openly the ‘human world’, so you can imagine how different this world would have looked like – killing was a normal daily business.
RICHARD: If you are referring to the civilising process which has enabled people, by and large, to sleep somewhat peacefully in their beds at night it has many factors contributing to it ... and not only religion.
RESPONDENT: I was not referring to the ideal situation when one is acting without instincts, neither as communism to repress them, but to acknowledge them, and yes why not to eliminate if that’s a physical safe business.
RICHARD: It is the instinctual passions, and not the instincts per se, that can be safely eliminated (via altruistic ‘self’-immolation in toto) now that intelligence has developed in the human animal. As the instinctual passions are the ‘self’ (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’) such elimination has a built-in safety factor which ensures success.
An actual freedom is what it says it is: it is actual, not a delusion, and thus delivers the goods.
RESPONDENT: Capitalism in my view is a more fortunate mixture between Christianity and instinctive drives.
RICHARD: The primary distinction between capitalism and communism, as currently and previously practised, is the private ownership of property/means of production (privatisation) versus the public ownership of property/means of production (nationalisation); the secondary distinction is a representative democracy (regular competitive elections for governance) versus a non-representative autocracy (non-competitive elections or imposition of governance); the other distinctions lie in the areas of accountable jurisprudence versus unaccountable jurisprudence, freedom of speech (uncensored media) versus restricted speech (censored media), freedom of association/assembly versus restricted association/assembly, freedom of contract versus restriction of contract, and freedom of religion versus restriction of religion (all of which involve issues of public policing versus secret policing) ... apart from the freedom/restriction of religion issue where is Christianity part of the mixture?
The Christian god not only owns everything, but is totally autocratic, arbitrarily imposes judgement, despotically punishes dissention, condemns proscribed association/assembly, has an authoritarian insistence on an exclusive contract ... and secretly spies on everyone (all of which makes the most notorious dictator but a rank amateur by comparison).
However if you can somehow manage to love this god you will be loved in return ... but even that is a matter of caprice (grace).
RESPONDENT: Then I found myself involved in the same discussions, only this time trying to bring people to the realization that God really exists and to demolish the Church God, without telling them I’ve experienced him myself, as it was quite a risky thing to do and I didn’t want to go public or to a public sanatory. Until I’ve realized that whether these people believed it or not it made no difference to them, He by his very nature doesn’t act ... and as a result of this reasoning I was interested more in finding the best (scientific) method to deliver the state.
RICHARD: Ahh ... I pick-up on the words ‘doesn’t act’ (of course) as this is central to all this ‘supreme intelligence’ nonsense which passes for wisdom in spirituality: has it ever occurred to you that a bodiless wisdom is of no use whatsoever to a flesh and blood body?
In other words, a body, sheerly by existing as form in space and time, both acts and is acted upon.
RESPONDENT: And now, if my grandmother would ask me if God exists, I would tell her that it does, He’s real but it’s not actual. Ha-ha-ha ! And then she’ll ask me what actual means, I suppose that’s where the <go> starts.
RICHARD: Back when I was a father, when my then children would ask me if Santa Claus was real, I would say yes but not actual like a table is, for instance, as their mother was full-on into the traditions and such diplomatic answers, rather than an outright no, made for relative domestic harmony ... and they had no difficulty whatsoever in grasping that concept (and applying it to witches riding broomsticks as well and fairies at the bottom of the garden and so on).
Curiously enough many years later (for I was a normal family man back then) that diplomatic response came in handy when endeavouring to come to terms with the existential dilemma I was living at the end of the enlightened period ... hence the term ‘actual’ in actual freedom.
If a child can grasp it anyone can (even though dictionaries draw no such distinction).
RESPONDENT: Of course my grandmother’s personality is as real as God, and I doubt she’ll ever understand this point.
RICHARD: It does tend to pull the very ground out from beneath one’s feet (in the metaphysical sense of those words).
RESPONDENT: The $64.000 question ... Hmm, I don’t know.
RICHARD: What I know is that you are yet to provide any examples as to what way [quote] ‘the extraordinary Intelligence of the enlightened State’ [endquote] far surpasses human intelligence.
That this supreme intelligence does not act may very well be the reason why, eh?
RESPONDENT: Are you more intelligent in your present condition when compared with the intelligence operating within the enlightened state?
RICHARD: A freed intelligence is free to be as intelligent as it is capable of ... on an Intelligence Quotient test, for instance, I rate about the same as before – somewhat above normal – which is not to imply that IQ alone is the measure of intelligence but that it is a useful reference.
RESPONDENT: And were you more intelligent when enlightened compared to when you were a happily married family man?
RICHARD: A normal intelligence is a crippled intelligence – crippled by both the instinctual passions and the ‘being’ they form themselves into – and an abnormal intelligence is further crippled by the ‘being’ manifesting as a ‘Being’ ... replete with the delusion that its intelligence is a supreme intelligence, an all-embracing intelligence, an all-knowing intelligence.
Taking all things into consideration (such as pacifistic nature of enlightenment for just one example) I would say less capable.
RESPONDENT: It’s just like asking who’s more intelligent: God, Richard or ... you (as what you are)?
RICHARD: No, it is a case of seeing that both the normal and abnormal intelligence is crippled right from the beginning ... a freed intelligence is free to be as intelligent as it is capable of.
RESPONDENT: Are you implying that ‘the extraordinary intelligence of the enlightened state’ was this body intelligence and not the Self?
RICHARD: No, although human intelligence does still operate, of course, albeit ham-strung ... it is more the very nature of Love Agapé, and Divine Compassion, that creates the delusion of it being a supreme, all-embracing intelligence when what it is, fundamentally, is the nurturing instinct writ large (hence it is generally classified as being the feminine principle).
The all-knowing part is just megalomania, such as all dictators display, only aggrandised to the hilt.
RESPONDENT: Was it because the identity vanished that ‘intelligence’ was able to operate more freely?
RICHARD: No (only one half of the identity vanishes in an altered state of consciousness) ... the delusion that love and compassion are supremely intelligent, as a state of being, is what was able to operate more freely.
RESPONDENT: And is the Self an usurper of this body intelligence as for the Universe properties, (as you have a direct experience of what remained – authentic and what went to the trash bin as the Absolute disappeared)?
RICHARD: No, if it has usurped anything it is blind nature’s nurturing role ... but it is more a case of glorifying and glamorising that way beyond its limited capacity.
RESPONDENT: The evidence I thought is the world we live in ... the Universe, light is the creative force out of which Life emerged.
RICHARD: That is understandable, upon sober reflection, as without sunlight there would be no life on this planet, hence sun-gods and sun-worship, and without the sun (a star) there would be no planet earth ... however having the light of a star be the source of the universe itself is quite another matter entirely in this day and age.
Modern astronomy has shot a lot of holes in the venerable wisdom of yore.
RESPONDENT: You said that you were a nature mystic, and as I’ve experienced Nature as something alive and beautiful, I wonder where is the change between Nature-then and Nature-now?
RICHARD: Then the world was experienced through rose-coloured glasses affectively fashioned out of love and beauty, so to speak, and now it is experienced directly ... as-it-is (and the world as-it-is is magnificent beyond compare).
I did not let go of enlightenment lightly ... it had to be for something far, far better.
RESPONDENT: Are you experiencing Nature in a different way?
RICHARD: No, this actual world is experienced as-it-is ... the ‘different way’ was affectively (with the rose-coloured glasses).
RESPONDENT: I usually go till the end of it, never stop half-way.
RICHARD: Ha ... that is how come this flesh and blood body is free of the identity within (‘he’ would not, and did not, stop halfway).
RESPONDENT: PS: Sorry for mixing ideas.
RICHARD: No problem ... but I do tend to put a multiple-issue e-mails to one side and attend to the more focussed ones.
The Third Alternative
(Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body)
Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.
Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.